This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

This article was created as described at Gmail talk and as a result of the tagging of the Gmail article as being too long and unreadable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

having all of this content in the parent article may make that article too long. but the real question that should be how much of this content is actually appropriate for an encyclopedia article? not much. and that content can be handled within the main gmail article. we do not need to have an advertisement/how to article based on google primary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.21.59 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well let's have that merger discussion then and see what the consensus is. Simce you didn't start it, I have, at Talk:Gmail#Merge_with_Gmail_interface. You also forgot to tag Gmail for the merger, so I will do that as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"There is no option to differentiate messages that branch off from the original thread."

I personally have never run into such problem. --anon 62.134.199.5 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess some people might think so, but it is only referenced to a description of the situation, not to a reviewer criticizing it so this could be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism about recipients selection is no longer valid... In the latest version you can open your address book by clicking "To:". There you can select as much recipients as you wish... 217.26.18.6 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article currently reads as uncritical whitewash. Gmail is incredibly weird and dysfunctional. The article does not begin to address the subject in a complete and comprehensive way. The only deep truth in the article is the one word "unique". Exactly the case -- and often not in a good way.-96.233.19.113 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

More criticism can certainly be added, as long as you can cite references as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)